Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
BHUSHAN LAL – Appellant
Versus
AMIT KUMAR AND ORS. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BAHL, J.
| INDEX | ||
| Paragraph(s) | ||
| 1. | Challenge in the present petition | 1 |
| 2. | Brief background of the case | 2 |
| 3. | Arguments on behalf of the petitioner | 3-5 |
| 4. | Arguments on behalf of the respondents | 6-7 |
| 5. | Analysis and findings | 8-31 |
CHALLENGE IN THE REVISION PETITION:
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment passed by the Rent Controller dated 15.01.2009 vide which the petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 1973') for the ejectment of the petitioner and Madan Lal (since deceased represented by LR's) was allowed. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 11.02.2010 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the eviction petition and as per the case of present respondents No.1 and 2 was a sub-tenant, was dismissed qua the challenge to the eviction order. The 1st Appellate Court had passed the eviction order on the ground of sub-letting and also on the ground of material impairment.
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
2. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of
Revisional jurisdiction under rent act limits interference to perversity or illegality, not reappreciation; impleaded subtenant has locus to challenge; pleading deficiencies non-fatal absent prejudic....
The court ruled that to establish sub-letting under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the landlord must prove the tenant has transferred exclusive possession, which was not done ....
A co-owner can maintain an eviction petition without other co-owners' consent, provided there are no objections, reaffirming that the landlord-tenant relationship must be established for eviction und....
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving unlawful sub-letting rests with the landlord and clarified the distinction between revisional and appellate jurisdiction, emphasizing that High....
Landlords failed to prove bona fide need for eviction under the Kerala Buildings Act, as necessary evidence was not presented, leading to restoration of the Rent Control Court's decision.
Revisional jurisdiction under rent acts does not permit re-appreciation of evidence; concurrent findings on sham partnership camouflaging subletting and rent arrears upheld absent perversity. Implead....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
